What if swtor had...

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the new trend by MMO developer to move toward action RPG elements or 1/3rd person shooter elements. Personally, I applaud their efforts to move the genre toward maturity and view this as the natural evolution of MMOs, much like the transition of turn based combat to live action or top down RPGs like FF1 to open world RPGs like skyrim. Now, there will always been old styles produced (IE: pokemon) but for the most part, we tend to move toward more engaging game play.
There is significant push back against this evolution, but I can't help but feel that those who would rather play an older style game will stick with their favorite series rather than try and stick to something new that plays the same. Let's use pokemon as an example again, after the success of pokemon there were many pokemon clones. But... Were any of them really as successful as pokemon? Are they still going strong today? I personally view World of Warcraft as the pokemon of the MMO genre. Sure, we could pick it apart and go over all the thousands of things that are wrong with it. But the fact is, when the next expansion comes out, or next generation of pokemon, millions of people will buy it, many of whom complain about the things that are wrong with it.

I personally felt that Swtor had an amazing story, an amazing skill set for each class, and a strong IP and developer behind it. EA forcing it out 6 months ahead of time aside. I feel like a fatal flaw was the archaic combat system. I remember when I first saw a game play video where they showed off the cover mechanic. Now, it wasn't from the perspective of the player. Initially I thought, my god! Its mass effect 2 as an MMO! At that moment I was sold. I didn't care how much I would have to spend for it. Later, upon entering the beta. I found that the combat was the same as EQ/WoWs. I was crestfallen. I had a similar reaction when I heard that EA had decided on a subscription model instead of b2p or f2p. I found out from watching the MMOreport and, much like the host casey shriner, pissed. Then there was the archaic space combat system. I thought I was playing starfox on a SNES.
But all these aside I attempted to forage forward into hyperspace hoping they would listen to feedback and at the very least adjust their payment model and space combat. In nov 15th, the fixed the payment model and in 2014 they will fix the space combat (we hope).

But they can't go back and fix the combat. Not really. If the combat had been the same as mass effect 3 multiplayer, how would you have felt about it?

edit: Also battlefront 2 combat just in case you were wonder what it would look like as a starwars game.

A recent MMO called firefall has similar game play but lacks the melee combat of battlefront

I highly doubt it would have changed the outcome much. The same issues would have been present regardless of the combat system in the game. People didn't leave because of the combat system, they left for other reasons which have been discussed to death.

And technically, they can alter the combat system if they want. TSW made the transition and has an optional targeting reticule for action combat if you want. I haven't tried it yet, but my understanding is that it doesn't alter the combat much. The games you linked are primarily shooters with a minor focus on abilities, rather than your standard MMO with a heavy focus on a variety of abilities. I'm honestly not sure how receptive your general MMO audience would be to removing the majority of their abilities in favor of more action oriented gameplay (Vindictus and Firefall are both relatively successful, but far from "mainstream"). Would be interesting though.

Personally, as a razor naga user who also uses shift modifiers... The main thing that is missing from firefall, for me, is having 20 to 30 or so abilities lol. Even having 8 would be great. Rather than.... you know. 2.

And technically, they can alter the combat system if they want. TSW made the transition and has an optional targeting reticule for action combat if you want. I haven't tried it yet, but my understanding is that it doesn't alter the combat much. The games you linked are primarily shooters with a minor focus on abilities, rather than your standard MMO with a heavy focus on a variety of abilities. I'm honestly not sure how receptive your general MMO audience would be to removing the majority of their abilities in favor of more action oriented gameplay (Vindictus and Firefall are both relatively successful, but far from "mainstream"). Would be interesting though.

That's a big reason why I question just how successful TESO will actually be.

There is animation locking in Vindictus too, it's just shorter. Most action games have animation locks, especially if they will be played online. Check out some online brawlers that don't have animation locks and you'll see what you see in some of the Korean PvP MMO's that don't have long animation locks, PvP matches that just consist of constant circle strafing as there is no opportunity cost for using any ability.

There is animation locking in Vindictus too, it's just shorter. Most action games have animation locks, especially if they will be played online. Check out some online brawlers that don't have animation locks and you'll see what you see in some of the Korean PvP MMO's that don't have long animation locks, PvP matches that just consist of constant circle strafing as there is no opportunity cost for using any ability.

Yeah, personally, I believe that there should be some opportunity cost. I think that something between GW2 which offers a LOT of mobility while attacking and Tera would be good. I feel like vindictus does it pretty well.

I suppose the action/animation locking in Vindictus is a lot less noticeable due to everything being a lot faster. It also helps that all of the fights there are over in an instant (except versus bosses) as opposed to Tera in which everything takes forever.

Anyway, about this topic. Yeah that kind of combat would have been nice, especially for gun wielding classes. But you know, I never really had that much of a problem with the combat in SWTOR (other than the ability bloat and global cooldown (which I complain about in any game if its there, so take my opinion there with that in mind)).

Now as a bit of tangent to your topic, I would have loved if SWTOR had the graphics and art direction of the Mass Effect games rather than the clone wars look they took.

There is significant push back against this evolution, but I can't help but feel that those who would rather play an older style game will stick with their favorite series rather than try and stick to something new that plays the same. Let's use pokemon as an example again, after the success of pokemon there were many pokemon clones. But... Were any of them really as successful as pokemon? Are they still going strong today? I personally view World of Warcraft as the pokemon of the MMO genre.

Not sure your example of Pokemon really applies to gameplay. Sorta comparing franchises. One can enjoy turn based gameplay such as in X-Com, Baldur's Gate or FTL.

You really don't play X-Com because you are looking for a Pokemon replacement or the same conventions of Pokemon. Even if both games share similar combat systems.

RE: SWTOR

I have never played those Star Wars games or Mass Effect video games. Only Firefall, which was pretty clunky, full of tons glitches and awful. Not sure that's a great example of how SWTOR's combat could be improved.

Aside from the bugs I was fine with SWTOR's combat. It was just kinda "standard". However, I don't believe stat based RPGs are played for "combat" but rather for the statistical crunch. That is to say the the gameplay device is expressed in those stats not the act of swinging a sword around. Or lightsaber, as the case may be.

Where I felt SWTOR failed was in it's endgame content. Which is my primary interest in theme park MMOs. SWTOR's endgame was easy, far too small operation size and uninteresting design. The story stuff was great and I enjoyed the production value of the game.

Obvs. that very production was unsustainable at even cursory glance. Full voice and music for everything? Yea, pretty clear that was not going to happen often over the course of live development. And with the anemic endgame, the very hook of SWTOR was a 3 week play through at best.

Not worth the sub with Rift pumping out excellent endgame, TSW having a greater personal appeal and GW2 providing sub-less play.

[FWIW, I dislike World of Warcraft and Star Wars. No real personal attachment, nostalgia or enjoyment in either franchise for me.]

Warning, before reading this, know that the post will be HEAVILY CRITICIZING the OP. You have been warned.

Originally Posted by hk-51

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the new trend by MMO developer to move toward action RPG elements or 1/3rd person shooter elements.

Give me 3 examples of such MMOs. And do note I am not asking for action RPG multiplayer games. I really do mean MMORPGs.

Personally, I applaud their efforts to move the genre toward maturity and view this as the natural evolution of MMOs

Of course, because everyone must like the same and it's impossible to create different games to please different crowds, right?

much like the transition of turn based combat to live action or top down RPGs like FF1 to open world RPGs like skyrim.

Comparing a JRPG with a regular RPG is not a good idea. Also, you use SKYRIM as an example of quality RPG? Riiiiiiiiight...

Now, there will always been old styles produced (IE: pokemon) but for the most part, we tend to move toward more engaging game play.

I want you to provide one single factual and well substantiated evidence why that particular game play is "more engaging game play". Now, please. And no, what works for you doesn't work for everyone. I advise reading up on the concept of subjectivity and realizing the world does not orbit around you.

There is significant push back against this evolution

Gee whizz I wonder why that is? What could be the cause of people going against this "evolution"? Maybe because it's NOT EVOLUTION? It's change? Change doesn't need to be for the better, it can be for the worse, or for the same. Still waiting for something factual and palpable on your side.

but I can't help but feel that those who would rather play an older style game will stick with their favorite series rather than try and stick to something new that plays the same.

You feel that people who aren't you, people you don't understand, will do something, even though you don't really understand them. Wow. And you take that as a fact, do you?

Let's use pokemon as an example again, after the success of pokemon there were many pokemon clones. But... Were any of them really as successful as pokemon?

I don't think I know what you mean by "there were many pokemon clones"... There have been plenty of collector-oriented games, yes. Plenty with great success. Do you know what is the most sold franchise of all times in gaming? Super Mario. Why? Because it was here first. Being the first is an advantage. Would you use the same argument that pokemon was evolution?

Are they still going strong today? I personally view World of Warcraft as the pokemon of the MMO genre.

Sure, we could pick it apart and go over all the thousands of things that are wrong with it. But the fact is, when the next expansion comes out, or next generation of pokemon, millions of people will buy it, many of whom complain about the things that are wrong with it.

Which happens with every single game that has sequels. So what?

I personally felt that Swtor had an amazing story, an amazing skill set for each class, and a strong IP and developer behind it.

Agreed.

I feel like a fatal flaw was the archaic combat system.

Disagreed.

I remember when I first saw a game play video where they showed off the cover mechanic. Now, it wasn't from the perspective of the player. Initially I thought, my god! Its mass effect 2 as an MMO!

Oh, sure, because cover was invented in ME2 and not more than 10 years ago. I mean, fine, there's aliens in both games and it's futuristic-looking (although swtor is supposedly in the far past), but really, is there anything else connecting the two games?

At that moment I was sold.

Hey, I have an eifel tower for sale. It has cover mechanisms. Only 3 billion euro.

Later, upon entering the beta. I found that the combat was the same as EQ/WoWs. I was crestfallen.

Go try gw2 or tera.

I had a similar reaction when I heard that EA had decided on a subscription model instead of b2p or f2p.

Being a subscriber since the start I am still heavily in favor of keeping the subscription model as the model that allows developers to focus resources on making a game BETTER and not FLASHIER.

I found out from watching the MMOreport and, much like the host casey shriner, pissed. Then there was the archaic space combat system. I thought I was playing starfox on a SNES.

Sidegames in a MMO, do they really need to be an entire game on their own?

But all these aside I attempted to forage forward into hyperspace hoping they would listen to feedback and at the very least adjust their payment model and space combat. In nov 15th, the fixed the payment model and in 2014 they will fix the space combat (we hope).

Stop speaking in the plural. "You" hope. You.

But they can't go back and fix the combat. Not really. If the combat had been the same as mass effect 3 multiplayer, how would you have felt about it?

I would probably be playing rift or LOTRO or something instead.

You want something that swtor is not. To me, swtor is (by your apparent definition) evolution over the common MMO and I can justify it: They focused much more on the story, made it much more enveloping, and increased replayability by a factor of at least 5. The companion mechanic and weaving class quests and companion quests into the leveling process was done very well, and this is something that was handled well for the very first time in the history of MMOs, for every single other attempt was not as successful.

And yet, why don't I call it evolution? BECAUSE IT IS NOT. It is a game that caters to a subset of people, just like every game should. I left WoW because it stopped catering to me. I left several MMOs for the same reason. I ended up here (although I have to admit I sorely miss lineage 2 c3 and earlier).

Different people want different things, and this isn't getting stuck in the past. IT'S LIKING DIFFERENT THINGS. Some people like yellow, others pink, others black, others green. It's not evolution, it's tastes. Some people like slow, soft music. Some people like fast, hard music. Some like slow and hard music, or fast and soft. We are not a species built on top of black and white. There is no better or worse other than as something subjective.

To finalize, I'm going to quote captain obvious now: "Oh, you have an opinion. Well that must make you right."

a) Such a heavy focus on Story telling which just doesn't make sense in a static MMO universe. It also doesn't make sense to invest so much into content that is essentially wasted after the first few play-throughs.

b) Complete lack of original concepts. Aside from Story telling, SWTOR couldn't have been a more standard MMO, mechanics wise. It's like they took the least risky approach and stuck with it despite the player-base demanding progress by the time they released.

c) SWTOR was built around the idea that you could beat WoW by copying WoW.

Yes, and would be a massive commercial flop. I think TERA did this, and now thats F2P after bugger all people bought it.

People don't really want innovation, something new. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing COD 9: Battle for Saddam's Testes or such springing up year after year with minor improvements.
There will always be a few people hoping for something revolutionary, but ultimately, people like familiarity, they like the same thing, with minor changes. Look at WoW, 10mil subs 8 years on, still going strong, and besides some GFX changes and quality of life improvements, it's still the same game.

Also, the MMO market "bubble", has, for want of a better word, burst. There will never be another MMO game as successful as WoW in the western hemisphere, so devs should stop chasing that pipedream and maybe make something with realistic goals. Problem is, gamers don't want that, put a ridiculous amount of self-hype into a game, expecting it to be the second coming, then shitting on it from on high when it doesn't deliver. SWTOR is an excellent case in point for this. The game itself was fine, it was enjoyable and did what it set out to do, problem is, people expected too much. They expected 6 years of endgame, a fully realised PVP system, and the QOL improvements WOW had, whilst simultaenously being revolutionary in every single which way. The devs had no chance, and neither did the game from Day one. No amount of extra tuning or polishing would have changed its fate to my mind.